StaggShire

Why was it so hard to stop the international slave trade?

Well, for one thing, America, the great hypocrite of the time, did not get on board with abolition until well after Great Britain did. But at the time this movie shows Great Britain was the greatest empire in the world, and was built upon the backs of slaves. The slave trade was acceptable to all but few, and of these, even fewer were brave enough to speak against it. This made it really difficult, because people in Parliament, although perhaps they personally they agreed with abolition, didn’t want to end people’s livelihood. Many people had heard about the horrors of slavery but didn’t quite believe them or couldn’t or didn’t want to understand the reality of things, didn’t want to be held accountable. It’s like today with the cruelty to animals thing. The beef and chicken millions of Americans eat every day were animals shoved 20,000 into a few dozen square feet, packed with hormones so they couldn’t even stand, lived in their own waste and pecked each other’s eyes out for lack of space… and people don’t want to believe it. People don’t want to watch FOOD Inc. to find out the truth behind America’s meatpacking industry. Who wants to be accountable for their sins?

I have yet to see FOOD INC., but last summer after reading the China Study I, for health benefits as well as my love for animals, am mostly vegetarian, with the exception of fish. I no longer buy any meat that is not free-range, and then only sparingly. I know that I as one person can make a difference, and I think that’s something a lot of people in those days didn’t believe. Indeed, in the movie in a conversation between William Pitt and Wilbur, before Wilbur’s abolitionist political days, Pitt challenges Wilbur to change the world, and Wilbur says, “I would change myself first.” It is as if he didn’t believe he could change the world, but he did, and more people today and then should have/had confidence in their ability to do and be something greater.
Another major problem was that people simply weren’t informed about slavery and the terrors of it, which again can be compared to the importance of food documentaries and becoming informed about where our food comes from and how it is treated. Knowledge is power, and even then it took years and years and years of knowledge dished out by Wilbur and his supporters to end the British slave trade. People also thought that destroying slavery was destroying England, and by destroying slavery the riches of the Indies would be handed over to the French. An argument that was also brought up in the film was that slaves equaled plantations, and without plantations, how were they supposed to fill the coffers of the king? They were worried that the French would step into their place and reap the rewards of the Indies, and I willing to bet France thought the same thing about the British. When the time of the war between Britain and France came closer, people thought that abolition wasn’t loyal to the king, which was weird. The focus came off of slavery and onto the war. Suddenly those men, women, and child slaves weren’t so important when people were afraid for themselves. They lost their compassion through fear. Also, vicious rumors were spread about those propagating abolition, rumors that irresponsible people gladly seized as an excuse to be passive while God’s children were continually violated. Additionally, people thought that there were other issues; they said that conditions were bad for everyone, people right there in England; in this way people were distracted from the issue. I hate that, hate when people say well yes, that’s bad, but what about this thing? I understand the importance of prioritizing, but just because there are multiple problems at hand in the world doesn’t mean we have to wait and figure out the solutions to all of them before we fix one. Also, people were elitist, and really thought they deserved to wring their bread from the sweat of another man’s brow, as Abraham Lincoln quoted in his second inaugural address. Also, Satan himself was of course behind the international slave trade, and his influence was strong over the hearts of those there. Heavenly Father’s loving gospel hadn’t returned to the earth yet, and men’s hearts were weak and bereft of the gift of the Holy Ghost. I mean, it took 20 years of being a slaver before John had a change of heart, repented from his life as a seller of souls, and wrote the song “Amazing Grace”. I wonder how often throughout those twenty years he felt horror at the things he was doing? I wonder what made him decide to end it?

Either way, God triumphed, and the internationally legal slave trade was abolished.

The Second Great Awakening was an important basis for that later theological development, specifically that of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The term Kentucky Ablaze is kind of a misnomer, because the religious enthusiasm wasn’t so much a fire as a religious tsunami, a baptism forever changing American and religious society. America didn’t start out religious; rather there were pockets of religion all over. The Second Great Awakening, in Dr. Holzapfel’s words, churched America. The Smith family was living in an area of revival, and there was religious division in Joseph Smith’s own family. His mom was Presbyterian, and his dad had Universalist leanings, which his eldest brother Alvin shared. His dad does have a number of religious visions though, which was certainly not unheard of at the time. However, the fact that he was Joseph Smith Sr. leads me to believe that at least the majority of his visions were actually truthful and from God. Joseph Smith himself leaned toward Methodism, but when we went to camp meetings he didn’t feel what other people were feeling. Due to the religious fervor of the time, he has quite concerned for the welfare of his eternal soul. After studying out these matters in his mind and in his heart, he decided to go ask God about it.
I’m glad that Joseph Smith got involved in the Great Awakening, and that he got involved in the WAY he did. He didn’t get swept up in the falseties of it, but what did concern him were the truths and questions the Second Great Awakening quested for. He studied scripture and many different religions, making the logical decision to pray to God about it, considering that the ministers of the different religions pulled him hither and thither. It’s a testimony to me, actually, of how important it is to be aware of what is going on in our nation, and the importance of being able to sieve through the good and bad, keep the good in your heart, and exercise that good.

Kay, so the two hours tour got a little long at the end... but it was not as long as I thought it was going to be and the first hour in particular went by really quickly!

I loved the attitudes and funny little jokes of the cute old guys that ran the museum. I really liked how they switched off giving the tour, so we didn't listen to just one person the whole time or even half the time. I've told like seven people about it since I went, and was really impressed by what I learned there.

I had never learned that Gutenberg changed his name from Goosemeat, so I thought that was pretty funny. I also didn't realize there was so much that went into inventing the printing press. It was really cool that we got to see them mold a letter and got to the molten metal set out to cool on the concrete slab. I also loved learning that he had six crews and six presses. I agree that it was inspiration that made him to do that. The fact that we still use today basically the same formula that he came up with hundreds of years ago is awesome. It was also amazing that there wasn't an advancement in the printing press until almost four hundred years after Gutenberg. He really was ahead of his time.

As far as Benjamin Franklin goes, I'm remember learning before that he was a printer but I'd completely forgotten and I thought that was sweet. When I was standing in the room I saw a frame that contained Benjamin Franklin's epitaph in it and it was as follows,

The body of B. Franklin, Printer
(Like the Cover of an Old Book
Its Contents torn Out
And Stript of its Lettering and Gilding)
Lies Here, Food for Worms.
But the Work shall not be Lost;
For it will (as he Believ'd) Appear once More
In a New and More Elegant Edition
Revised and Corrected
By the Author.

I thought that was so beautiful! My heart stirred when I read it. I also loved learning about where the phrase, "Mind your p's and q's probably came from." I am a Spanish Translation major, and am always super interested in word choice and idioms. I thought it was so cool how the Lord must have given strength to the print shop boys to be able to print so quickly, and I really appreciated the testimony born by one of the tour guides about the printing press being a device of the Restoration. I loved hearing the little details about President Monson's visit and playing with the little poodle was fun too. I definitely want to go back with my husband. Oh, and I thought it was awesome that they are hoping to be able to take every missionary that goes into the MTC through there. I think that will be invaluable to their testimonies and a really cool thing to share with people! It'll also be great press for the museum.

Why do you think it took so long before women decided to organize a concentrated effort to receive equal rights? Please make your response 650-800 words.
Well beforehand there weren't very many opportunities for women to speak out. When they did speak out, they were viewed with mistrust and the perspective that that kind of women weren't "proper" or "wholesome". They were shunned in every aspect that before speaking out they were permitted to participate in, so why even try? Since society was everything in those days, I can see why women didn't go against that. Also, it's not like there were many opportunities to organize anyway.
Additionally, a woman's place before the Industrial Revolution was always in the home, and in some countries it was illegal to educate a woman. I found a quote that explains well the attitude, "Women had their responsibilities, none of which required philosophy, biology, rhetoric, and so on to accomplish. So why teach them?" "Why teach them?" or course, was the erring mentality of the ages. The male schoolteacher in Little Women says, “It is as useless to educate a woman as to educate a female cat.”
Additionally, since there was so much to do and because of agriculture farmhouses were so far apart, it made getting organized and speaking in public about ideas difficult. Also, women were very beaten down, along with men. But since they were treated even more unfairly than men were, unfortunately it seemed that white men's suffrage and rights would naturally come into play before that of women's.
Christian Pena, another member of the class, says this, " After years of 'education' (quotations added), many women were essentially trained in the art of being fragile and tender, weak and submissive. While their male counterparts were being to taught to manage money, people, and in some cases, nations, the women were learning to remain oppressed." I totally agree with that. A lot of their behavior was not necessarily nature-centered, but rather imposed on them by men and society. In matters of politics, in matters of money, in matters of philosophy, women's brains were not exercised, but rather encouraged to be feeble-minded. In addition, manner of dress has something to do with it too, as Marmee in Little Women says: "Feminine weaknesses and fainting spells are the direct result of our confining young girls to the house, bent over their needlework, and restrictive corsets." I would look pale and weak too if I never had the opportunity to exercise, be out in the fresh air, and had to wear tight little heels and big huge dresses that were impossible to run in. I wonder how much further along our world and society would be if women had been allowed to partipate fully in life earlier in the life of the world?
Also, the church wasn't restored until later, and the church, besides changing people's lives and perspectives in almost every way, treating women with much more freedom and respect than other organized societies. Joseph Smith turned the keys in behalf of women, by the inspiration of God. As God inspired the founding fathers to bring the Revolution, God was responsible for turning the keys in behalf of women. Inside the church women were able to teach and speak in public, they had experience with leadership and organization. Many of the men of the church were in prison, and while their husbands were in prison, their wives ran the family business. There was no occupation that was closed to LDS women, especially by 1886. In the temple, men and women perform the same rites, and participate equally. This has also a doctrinal implication, in that men AND women have to be together and be exalted. Through the temple clothing, women are dressed in the robes of the priesthood; they administer and receive the keys of the kingdom, given equally to men and women. With the Church and the Gospel as a jumping off point, the women’s rights movement was facilitated.

Amistad and Slavery

I really really enjoyed watching this edited movie. I’m pretty good at being a sympathetic and empathetic person, but this movie really helped me see aspects of slavery I’d never thought of before. For example, at the beginning of the movie there is this shot of a heaving, sweating, heavily breathing something. Because it is so dark and because that something is so dark, it takes a minute or two and a slight change in camera angle to tell that it is actually a person, Joseph Cinque to be precise. This helped me understand the beastlike, wolf caught in a trap attitude that a lot of blacks had to reach in order to survive. I know a lot of white people back then said the blacks were “animals”. Throughout different times in the movie I could see that animalistic behavior. On one hand, the “animalistic” behavior such as keeping the young boy’s body was just unfamiliar and cultural. On the other hand, other behaviors that were also shown in the movie were indeed animalistic, but only because through the white cruelty and circumstances, they had to become in some ways something less than human, something capable of surviving what no human being (or animal ) should have to go through. I know that if I had that happen to me, I would really have to let go of the more human part of me to let go of the pain and to survive. In a strong fashion, acting animalistic is an important reminder of the humanity of the slaves, and of the inhumanity of their circumstances and captors.

Also, the scene where Joseph Cinque is with his family and then gets captured without them knowing just went straight to my heart. The fact that Africans captured and slaves in America were and could be wrenched away from their families at any moment has always been a very somber reality for me. However, now that I am married, I just kept picturing my dear husband and best friend Kevin being dragged away into the underbrush, or I standing at the head of the ship back to Africa, like Joseph Cinque, not knowing what lay ahead, not knowing that my family was not going to be there. This gripping realization and the vivid feelings I had made my appreciation and testimony of the plan of salvation grow so much stronger. I am so grateful that I can be with my family again after I die, and it makes me so happy that Joseph Cinque is with his family again, right now as I write this and you read this.
I also realized, seeing the scars that were still on Joseph Cinque’s skin once the case was won for good and the handcuffs removed, that there was so much emotional baggage that the slaves and the Africans on the Amistad had to deal with. For example, the Mende who interpreted- even though he was a free black, even though he could read and write- what was he losing by being here in the United States and not in Africa? What of his culture and his heritage went slipping away, lost for his whole life? I know there was a least one point in the movie where it seemed from the look on his face while watching the Africans that he felt a keen sense of loss and longing.

Thank you, Dr. Holzapfel, for the opportunity to so poignantly expand my already eager understanding and deep love and respect for African cultures and peoples.

I chose to expound upon Federalist No. 10 because it contains a concept which I found very simple but very enlightening. That concept is that Madison argued that a strong, large republic would be a better guard against those dancers than smaller republics, for instance, the individual states. In taking AP US history in high school we learned about this stuff, but now that I’m smarter (I guess) I understand so much better how much the states were against each other and so concerned with their own interests rather than the common good of America. That’s why a few weeks ago, the name of our country, the UNITED States of America, hit home with me. It really was such a long and laborious accomplishment for these individual states to become united. Madison obviously need to put this Federalist Paper out there so that people would list to sence. I guess this is why Wikipedia reports, “Today, however, No. 10 is regarded as a seminal work of American democracy. In "The People's Vote," a popular survey conducted by the National Archives and Records Administration, National History Day, and U.S. News and World Report, No. 10 (along with Federalist No. 51, also by Madison) was chosen as the 20th most influential document in United States history.” I love that Dr. Holzapfel has us read such relavent readings. Althought these Federalist papers weren’t the most enjoyable out of all our readings, I still read them knowing they weren’t just stupid papers that had nothing to do with our learning, and that knowledge helps me to appreciate the reading that I’m doing.

It is interesting to me that this Federalist paper indicates that the Founding Fathers did not intend for American politics to be partisan. I’ve been witness to many debates about this and read stuff on it and I’m still not sure what I think. I like the thought of voting for a person, not a party, for sure. I would like to be able to vote for someone based on their own individual views, not the views the party has for them. But then again, isn’t it human nature to organize thoughts and beliefs under a specific motto or name or creedo or whatever? Despite that, I do think that a no party system would be a good idea. There, I guess I just decided.
It looks like the Founding Fathers took human nature into account here though too. Yet again, Madison says, let us focus on the effects, because we can’t do anything about the causes of factions, because those are just human nature. Justica Clarence Thomas said, “The Framers (of the Constitution) preferred a political system that harnessed such faction for good, preserving liberty while also ensuring good government. Rather than adopting the repressive cure for faction htat the majority today endorses, the Framers armed individual citizens with a remedy.” This remedy is liberty. This remedy is “giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.” I love this idea to because it seems so simple but I’m sure it was very revolutionary at the time. I really appreciate how he embraces diversity.

I also really like this line here, “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgement, and not improbably, corrupt his integrity.” I wish I had read this back in my freshman year of high school. The principal of my school hit one of the teachers and threw something at his son (the teacher’s son, who also attended the school), and we had a trial for it, with the principal as judge! It was ridiculous! I wonder why those adults didn’t do anything about it. They should have brought up the Federalist Papers and been like “Behold, the wisdom of James Madison!”

There wasn't really one aspect of this movie that intrigued me enough to write a decent blog post about, so I'm going to write about several aspects.

I found it really interesting that George Washington was so key to everything, and that everyone, no matter what party they were in, liked him so much. It makes sense, but I'd just never realized how crucial he was. I'm glad he actually decided to come to the convention. I didn't really understand from the movie why he didn't want to come. Also, I don't know if this was just because of the movie or what, but there were some parts of the movie where James Madison sounded like John Adams, which I thought was funny but also quite appropriate. I liked how they explained that societies are amde up of warring factions, and that a small republic often gives up to these factions. They said that only in a large government with different people can no one faction gained control. I thought that was really smart, just another advantage a larger nation has over a smaller one. I thought it was sad that John Dickinson kept causing trouble with the whole representation deal because he seemed like a really smart guy and a few posts ago I said I really liked him. But you'd think he'd be smart enough to not make another big error in judgment. I thought it was cool that Benjamin Franklin suggests a prayer and says that God governs in the affairs of men. It surprised me that he did this because I thought he was a Deist who didn't take much to God and religion.

Even though this movie was kinda cheesy and parts and I couldn't get over the actor who played Alexander Hamilton, it was really helpful for me to more internalize the concepts I'd learned in the chapter.